Yeah, the drive to "win" really has exposed both sides as hypocritical opportunistic fools.

--J.D.

Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club! "Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--DonDocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnomeWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!!Stanley Cup!SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!35

Less than a week before the California primary, Google listed “Nazism” as the ideology of the California Republican Party.

In the “knowledge panel” that provides easy access to information next to search results, Google was showing “Nazism” as an “ideology” of the party as of Thursday morning. The word “Nazism” was hyperlinked to a secondary page that shows “Nazism” alongside other “ideologies” of California Republicans like “Conservatism,” "Market liberalism,” “Fiscal conservatism,” and “Green conservatism."

California voters have been casting their absentee ballots for weeks ahead of Tuesday’s statewide primary elections, which will help determine the majority in the House of Representative and the potential next governor of the world’s fifth-largest economy.

But voters looking for information by searching “California Republicans” or “California Republican Party” were getting “Nazism” next to their search results until Google took the listing down later Thursday after a query from VICE News.

I do wonder where you get the idea that errors like this are always against conservatives. Did you research many instances? What methods did you use to select and compare?

"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

If Google is going to insist upon a prominent display of Wikipedia results based on the submitted query then it's on Google.

I agree they bear some responsibility from negligence, but it speaks against it being a partisan decision.

"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

Matthew Pottinger must have been surprised to learn that he doesn’t exist. As the top official for Asia on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, Pottinger had briefed dozens of reporters about North Korea two days before Trump angrily tweeted that a New York Times article citing his remarks had relied on an official who “doesn’t exist.” The president was furious that the Times had paraphrased Pottinger, who spoke on background and thus could not be identified in its story, as saying it would be “impossible” for Trump to go forward with his June 12 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un because there wasn’t enough time to prepare.

“Use real people, not phony sources,” Trump fumed.

A debate ensued online about whether the Times accurately characterized Pottinger, who never used the word “impossible,” although he did come close, saying that the summit date is “in 10 minutes, and it’s going to be — you know …” without finishing the thought.

But there is no debate about whether Pottinger is real. More than that, he is among Trump’s longest-serving aides. As the NSC’s director for Asia, the sandy-haired, boyish-looking 45-year-old is the president’s top adviser on North Korea and China. He organized Trump’s 12-day trip to Asia last fall, during which he was rarely far from the president’s side. He has played a central role in coordinating Trump’s North Korea policy since early last year — one reason he was among a handful of U.S. officials to fly into Pyongyang earlier this month with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And he has been in the thick of White House preparations for a possible summit with Kim.

So the guy definitely exists, and although he didn't say the word "impossible" he did say "it’s going to be — you know …"
He wasn't identified by name because the briefing was "on background".

The truth here is not on the side of Trump. And if you think they drew the wrong conclusion and mischaracterized what he said, then he should have said something clearer than "you know ...".

The NYT didn't do anything other than report the news.

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Anaxagoras wrote:
The NYT didn't do anything other than report the news.

Are you seriously suggesting that Trump was denying that White House officials exist? And/or that difficult is synonymous with "impossible"?

Absolutely, you quoted it yourself. Please read it again.

WildCat wrote:The New York Times uses fake news to confirm its previous fake news. There was a big kerfuffle a few days ago when the NYT claimed a "senior White House official" said a Trump-Fat Boy meeting was "impossible". Trump tweeted:

Furthermore on several times in the past he has claimed that unnamed sources are made up.

Here's one example; there are others.

What anonymous sources say is sort of like a game of telephone by the time it get reported to news consumers.
If I tell you one thing, and you paraphrase what I said to someone else, like in a game of telephone each time it will change a little bit, so what gets reported may not be what the source intended to communicate. That's just par for the course in human communication. I'm sure we've all had misunderstandings with other people, right? What is said, or intended to be said is not always what is heard or understood.

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club! "Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--DonDocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnomeWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!!Stanley Cup!SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!35